We’ve had enough of digital monopolies and surveillance capitalism. We want an alternative world that works for everyone, just like the original intention of the web and net.
We seek a world of open platforms and protocols with real choices of applications and services for people. We care about privacy, transparency and autonomy. Our tools and organisations should fundamentally be accountable and resilient.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 09/02/2015 12:05 PM, Robert Tischer wrote: > > RT>"open source" for me is tantamount to promiscuous copying without > regards to ownership of intellectual property rights. Only the early > days of communism believed this was an ideal. But no one but a thief > would dream of going into a retail store and walking out with > someone else's material property today. > Well, that's the point: "intellectual property" is not physical property. Only a fool would sustain that their ideas and intellectual capacity comes out of the blue. As Isaac Newton famously wrote: "I'm sitting on the shoulders of giants". Before "intellectual property" appeared, there was science and culture. Even during wartime, as restricted as exchange between intellectuals might be, scientists know no borders, and build on each other's knowledge. The free software movement can be considered yet another contribution to human knowledge and culture, on par with scientific knowledge. The arts show that you can pay for a work and make it available to the public without further fee. Artists paid for their work don't complain that they don't get a fee for each visitor. Second-hand bookstore are not illegal. Public libraries either. "Intellectual property" is a confusing legal construct that covers anything from authorship rights to patent laws. It would be akin to say that a fence, a kitchen, and a book belong to the same "physical property". > my way of thinking as a psycholinguist > I don't have the pleasure to know the field of psycholinguistics, but I certainly can understand how language can be used for psychological framing. The narratives bring forth world views that shape reality in a way suitable for understanding. The narrative of "redecentralize", as far as I understand it, is about redistributing power to the users of technologies, to involve them in their creation, not only their consumption. If you see, as a psycholinguist, technological innovation as something coming from experts and dependent on them, I'm sorry to tell you that it's a vision from another Century. The new narrative involves peer production and common experimentation. Products driven by commercial plans fail to address the complexity of human life. Complexity that we must embrace if we are to succeed in building a sustainable society on this planet. It is unfortunate but true that economics is the politics of capital, and the new narrative must convey the idea that economics should be pushed back to its original application of serving human communities, not special interests. "Redecentralization" is about empowering our communities, not shifting from global masters to other global masters. That is the process of revolution: using the masses to help a ruling class overthrowing another ruling class. This won't help us achieve global sustainability in any case. The power shift requires both global coordination and local autonomy. Only software freedom can achieve the latter. As to the former, only politics can do it. Technology alone, especially proprietary technologies, cannot provide the necessary empowerment for local communities to adapt it to their actual needs, and no special committee can ever encompass in their vision all the complexity of local situations. I understand perfectly the need to secure one's own way of living. But I don't think that requires artificially restricting other people's initiative to do so. This is a colonialist vision, the still dominant vision of out times. Hegemony of a self-proclaimed superior class that knows better will never help us pass this century. > > the forced philosophy of "open source" > There's no such thing as the philosophy of "open source", forced or not. Open source is a reduction of the free software philosophy to its engineering aspect, specifically designed to tame corporate fears about anything social. It succeeded in bringing free software to the mainstream, but it fails to inflect technological innovation towards inclusive goals beyond the elite class of technologists. > interlocking software structures. This is what Hiveware does. > I'm not sure that interlocking software structures can do any good. Can you expand on this aspect of your discourse? > Imagine the ability to sell someone a digital item and repossess > it if some part of the payment fails? > Imagine the ability to sell someone a computer, and be able to remove contents from it that you deem inappropriate. That's exactly what Amazon did with books, what Apple does with its hardware, and what Lenovo does when it prevents me from changing the network card to one that I prefer, that is technically compatible with my computer, but didn't pass their commercial vendor agreement specifications (i.e., it doesn't have a backdoor built-in). Now, imagine if your car vendor would deem appropriate to prevent you from driving certain roads that were not available when they sold you the car: right, nobody would accept this. Yet, many accept that hardware or software vendors have a say on what you can do with "your own", legally purchased items and "intellectual property". Digital contents pose different issues than physical objects, and certainly something must be done to enable content (and software) producers to receive fair payment for their work. But I don't think limiting availability is a satisfactory way of doing so. > "Why do I need to send data through a server?" Doesn't > really make much sense if you can guarantee un-eaves-droppable > end-to-end delivery. > But end-to-end delivery uses a multitude of servers and routers, so it's just not about who owns the content. The Internet infrastructure is not virtual and it actually costs a lot to companies who don't get a dime of royalty on your software. > meaning folk's notions of privacy and possession > Possession and property are very distinct concepts. I'm very fine with people possessing stuff. Owning property is another thing entirely, that depends on the capacity to enforce such property. > The real problem is how to organize piecemeal encrypted transport. > Well, besides the fact transport is only one part of the equations, there are plenty of free software project addressing this need, and they have no need to restrain use, modification, distribution, or access to their source code in any way to do so. Moreover, as you must know, peer-to-peer systems work best when more people use it. If the Internet Protocol was covered by restrictive "intellectual property", we certainly wouldn't have this conversation. == hk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJV5x6BXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0 ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg9/b4QALCwk3sF24faV4DnjgpAI9wu 9Qs0H7vrtId7Z792gMUEciBwtIxZc7m7p/cojneUMcnIUq8qh6YMItd1rZC1WcKV arUrM/G8OReSpexYvt89tcUFHvBA8jHxXjNIoWscd4MBqeAWp/idirs3RkcDepdY bHHfVtjSOl2t5recnOlyZLMhCkzeZfOZtSgGM0jtkERUXuE8BQhqMqNxCQ6bNdhV Q4NsK59QHXGDlItdFD2PJkq57tu5C8kTkK9MaIxJwA0SF9bXMFVyZYCum+A7TvEU MsJCwOSnrasb0NjjU9aA2jJasHzG4GgrBngtOJgbojg+oF7XpKHiIdlcSjtpg/CD ARxEaJULyHLlTT4iKHuC3gsynw7GUyLDcbsj3c9CVsGg8EMj0dSAQ3YSFK3ZoxhD DXWs1uHg7971AJzzCUkuO8DvmAiK+makMT0Fu13QT9+qHDlug8w1BWlkDAUu6Xkp Xcw5RlHaetM1xX1qbhcfhaZGifECk4RB593IDyArBM2jeWiK/SiJ1gDhcQYCAj17 iIsVlhyU1EEY7woActH4q4qN4NOmnOMgPYmyy5Q0AhA4NGR/xHj77XQRXC9yRkbc TADcvJ6cwaFwtMr8xB6Iw4e45cg6p4Kirx9+d8gXh8EBXFynvCTmSQ2FKqwziPQx RkWXot088lakXOqFprYx =1cz8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----